Hertel: Why Georgia needs nuclear power

It’s clear that the decision to invest in a diversity of fuels — particularly advanced nuclear power — was the smart economic and environmental choice for our state.

With the addition of two new AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant, we will have ample electric capacity in Georgia to attract new industry and meet our energy needs, while protecting the environment. This strategy will position us for an expanding economy in the years ahead.

From a technological viewpoint, nuclear power remains one of the primary energy sources for the foreseeable future. Nuclear plants produce an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of fuel.

Those who don’t develop nuclear power like California and the Northeast states, where conservation’s most strident advocates exaggerate the possibilities of imposing easy and cheap conservation on consumers, threaten their long-term economic well-being. Those who stay in the vanguard of nuclear power development will be able to forge ahead.

Electrical energy use in the Southeast is projected to grow 34 percent by 2030, outpacing the rest of the country. With the unpredictability of natural gas prices and pressure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the allure of nuclear power only grows stronger.

Work is under way on nuclear plants in Tennessee and Alabama, ground is being cleared for two nuclear units each in Georgia and South Carolina, and serious consideration is being given to building one or more plants in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Certainly that’s promising, but it falls short of the 60 new nuclear plants that would need to be built nationally in order to meet projected growth in electricity demand and still preserve nuclear power’s 20 percent share of electricity generation. The possibility of supply disruptions in some regions of the country should not be dismissed.

There is a mistaken belief held by a number of state public utility commissions that new electricity supplies are available from natural gas, so serious planning from nuclear power need not be undertaken. Yet experience has shown that investing heavily in natural gas for new electric-power capacity is foolhardy. As we’ve learned well over the past 15 years, the energy market can be devastating to those who put all their eggs in one basket.

Although gas today is abundant and cheap, don’t count on it remaining so. Gas supplies will become much tighter in the next few years, as U.S. industries use more natural gas for feedstock and heating, trucks and buses switch from oil to natural gas, and liquefied natural gas becomes available for export to markets in Europe and Asia. At least six energy companies plan to build LNG terminals with enough capacity to export 18 percent of U.S.-produced natural gas.

There is an illusion that renewable energy sources will see us through. While there are further gains to be made by solar, wind and other renewable sources, much of this power is heavily subsidized. In addition, solar and wind are unreliable on days when the weather is not cooperating, requiring natural gas or oil for back-up electricity generation.

By contrast, over the past three years, the 104 U.S. nuclear plants have produced electricity, on average, more than 90 percent of the time. What’s more the safety and performance record of U.S. nuclear plants has been nothing short of remarkable.

Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.